Archive for the ‘Legal Issues’ Category

THE SECOND AMERICAN CIVIL WAR CONTINUES

Sunday, April 15th, 2018

 

 

©2018. William Hamilton.

Nationally syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, is a laureate of the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame, the Nebraska Aviation Hall of Fame, the Colorado Aviation Hall of Fame, and the Oklahoma University Army ROTC Wall of Fame. In 2015, he was named an Outstanding Alumnus of the University of Nebraska. Dr. Hamilton is the author of The Wit and Wisdom of William Hamilton: the Sage of Sheepdog Hill, Pegasus Imprimis Press (2017). “Central View,” can also be seen at: www.central-view.com.

 

 

On Saturday, April 14, 2018, William Hamilton <drwm.hamilton@gmail.com> wrote:

 

“Central View,” by William Hamilton, J.D., Ph.D.

The Second American Civil War Continues…

Readers may recall not long ago in this space: “What constitutes a Civil War is when certain bureaucrats within the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, along with certain elected and appointed officials within the Legislative and the Judicial Branches of government, form a conspiracy, either formal or informal, to set aside the results of the presidential election of 2016 and to prevent the duly elected president from being able to govern effectively…”

Do not be confused about what is going on in Washington, D.C. The current tactic in the American Civil War II is to provoke President Trump into taking an action or actions that could be the basis for the charge of: Obstruction of Justice.

Note well: If and when the Democrats obtain a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, President Trump will be impeached for something like “running with scissors when his mother told him long ago not to do that.” That, however, would not get President Trump convicted by 2/3ds of the U.S. Senate. A truly substantive charge would be required.

Recall, President Nixon was not forced out of office because some over-eager campaign underlings broke into the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee. The burglars were caught in the act and they were on their way to being subjected to whatever punishment the Courts and the Federal Election Commission decided to mete out. But, when President Nixon tried to cover up what happened, he obstructed justice and for that Nixon was forced to resign. Nixon’s alternative was to risk being impeached by a simple majority of the House and, possibly, convicted by 2/3ds of the U.S. Senate.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – WE FIGHT – DONALD TRUMPS SPEECH TO THE NATION

Wednesday, April 11th, 2018

 

Thanks to Beverly Frassinelli for sharing this inspiring video  of a speech Donald Trump gave on October 13, 2016   Also, thanks to Beverly for sharing her prayer with us  ” May God be with him and our country in this time of peril from America’s enemies from within.”  Nancy

VIDEO –  WE FIGHT  – SPEECH BY DONALD TRUMP
TEXT OF SPEECH

We Fight…

On October 13th 2016, presidential candidate Donald Trump delivered a speech that defines this moment in our nation’s history. Part of that speech was put to a video. The entire transcript of that speech is below.

.

Transcript ] […] Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American People. There is nothing the political establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense.

The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself.

The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. As an example, just one single trade deal they’d like to pass, involves trillions of dollars controlled by many countries, corporations and lobbyists.

For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our campaign represents an existential threat.

 

This is not simply another 4-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not We The People reclaim control over our government.

(more…)

Share

DIAMOND AND SILK CENSORED BY FACEBOOK

Sunday, April 8th, 2018

 

   Sample video of Diamond and Silk  www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvNREvITA5w     Nancy  

 

freedomoutpost.com/facebook-popular-pro-trump-duo-content-brand-determined-unsafe-community/

Facebook to Popular Pro-Trump Duo: “Your Content & Your Brand Has Been Determined Unsafe To The Community”

Ladies, you’ve been given an answer.  They aren’t going to answer further.  The only way to deal with them is in a class action lawsuit or get Congress to use anti-trust laws to bust them up.  The same should apply to Google and Twitter.

The utter hypocrisy of Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg is so obvious a child could see it.  Yep, you read the headline correct.  A popular pro-Trump duo, who have over 1.2 million likes on their page and nearly 1.25 million followers were told by Facebook that their content and their brand were “determined unsafe to the community.”

OK, I’ll let you know, the duo is none other than Diamond and Silk, two black women who made headlines during the 2016 presidential election for their support of Donald Trump.  The two ladies were applauded by millions who seemed to appreciate their candor and humor in their commentary.

Diamond And Silk have been corresponding since September 7, 2017, with Facebook (owned by Mark Zuckerberg), about their bias censorship and discrimination against D&S brand page. Finally after several emails, chats, phone calls, appeals, beating around the bush, lies, and giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason why Millions of people who have liked and/or followed our page no longer receives notification and why our page, post and video reach was reduced by a very large percentage. Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM: “The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community.” Yep, this was FB conclusion after 6 Months, 29 days, 5 hrs, 40 minutes and 43 seconds. Oh and guess what else Facebook said: “This decision is final and it is not appeal-able in any way.” (Note: This is the exact wording that FB emailed to us.)

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – THREE WAYS CHINESE ACCESS U.S. TECHNOLOGY

Thursday, April 5th, 2018

 

VIDEO – 

Three Ways China Gets Its Hands on U.S. Tech

4/3/2018 3:05PM     

President Trump says China is forcing U.S. companies to transfer their technology secrets to China. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday tells you how. Illustration: Adele Morgan

Share

CLIMATE ALARMISTS MAY INHERIT THE WIND

Wednesday, April 4th, 2018

 

 

www.wsj.com/articles/climate-alarmists-may-inherit-the-wind-1522605526?mod=ITP_opinion_0&tesla=y THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Climate Alarmists May Inherit the Wind

View this email in your browser
Climate Alarmists May Inherit the Wind

They likened a courtroom ‘tutorial’ to the Scopes Monkey Trial. But their side got schooled.

By Phelim McAleer   Mr. McAleer is a journalist, playwright and filmmaker. He is currently writing a play about Chevron Corp.’s legal fight over alleged pollution in Ecuador.      April 2, 2018

San Francisco

Five American oil companies find themselves in a San Francisco courtroom. California v. Chevron is a civil action brought by the city attorneys of San Francisco and Oakland, who accuse the defendants of creating a “public nuisance” by contributing to climate change and of conspiring to cover it up so they could continue to profit.No trial date has been set, but on March 21 the litigants gathered for a “climate change tutorial” ordered by Judge William Alsup—a prospect that thrilled climate-change alarmists. Excited spectators gathered outside the courtroom at 6 a.m., urged on by advocates such as the website Grist, which declared “Buckle up, polluters! You’re in for it now,” and likened the proceeding to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial.

In the event, the hearing did not go well for the plainti s—and not for lack of legal talent. Steve W. Berman, who represented the cities, is a star trial lawyer who has made a career and a fortune suing corporations for large settlements, including the $200 billion-plus tobacco settlement in 1998.

“Until now, fossil fuel companies have been able to talk about climate science in political and media arenas where there is far less accountability to the truth,” Michael Burger of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University told Grist. The hearing

did mark a shift toward accountability—but perhaps not in the way activists would have liked.

Judge Alsup started quietly. He flattered the plaintif s’ first witness, Oxford physicist Myles Allen, by calling him a “genius,” but he also reprimanded Mr. Allen for using a misleading illustration to represent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a graph ostensibly about temperature rise that did not actually show rising temperatures.

Then the pointed questions began. Gary Griggs, an oceanographer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, struggled with the judge’s simple query: “What do you think caused the last Ice Age?”

The professor talked at length about a wobble in the earth’s orbit and went on to describe a period “before there were humans on the planet,” which “we call hothouse Earth.” That was when “all the ice melted. We had fossils of palm trees and alligators in the Arctic,” Mr. Griggs told the court. He added that at one time the sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today.

Mr. Griggs then recounted “a period called ‘snow ballers,’ ” when scientists “think the entire Earth was frozen due to changes in things like methane released from the ocean.”

Bear in mind these accounts of two apocalyptic climate events that occurred naturally came from a witness for plaintif s looking to prove American oil companies are responsible for small changes in present-day climate.

The defendants’ lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., emphasized the little-discussed but huge uncertainties in reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the failure of worst-case climate models to pan out in reality. Or as Judge Alsup put it: “Instead of doom and gloom, it’s just gloom.”

Mr. Boutrous also noted that the city of San Francisco—in court claiming that rising sea levels imperil its future—recently issued a 20-year bond, whose prospectus asserted the city was “unable to predict whether sea level rise or other impacts of climate change or

flooding from a major storm will occur.”

Judge Alsup was particularly scathing about the conspiracy claim. The plaintif alleged that the oil companies were in possession of “smoking gun” documents that would prove their liability; Mr. Boutrous said this was simply an internal summary of the publicly available 1995 IPCC report.

The judge said he read the lawsuit’s allegations to mean “that there was a conspiratorial document within the defendants about how they knew good and well that global warming was right around the corner. And I said: ‘OK, that’s going to be a big thing. I want to see it.’ Well, it turned out it wasn’t quite that. What it was, was a slide show that somebody had gone to the IPCC and was reporting on what the IPCC had reported, and that was it. Nothing more. So they were on notice of what in IPCC said from that document, but it’s hard to say that they were secretly aware. By that point they knew. Everybody knew everything in the IPCC,” he stated.

Judge Alsup then turned to Mr. Berman: “If you want to respond, I’ll let you respond. . . . Anything you want to say?”“No,” said the counsel to the plaintif . Whereupon Judge Alsup adjourned the proceedings.

Until now, environmentalists and friendly academics have found a receptive audience in journalists and politicians who don’t understand science and are happy to defer to experts. Perhaps this is why the plainti s seemed so ill-prepared for their first court outings with tough questions from an informed and inquisitive judge.

Activists have long claimed they want their day in court so that the truth can be revealed. Given last week’s poor performance, they may be the ones who inherit the wind.

Mr. McAleer is a journalist, playwright and filmmaker. He is currently writing a play about Chevron Corp.’s legal fight over alleged pollution in Ecuador.

(more…)

Share

GUN CONTROL – TAKING A SECOND LOOK

Monday, March 26th, 2018

 

The historical facts (see below)  regarding  what can  happen when  the people can no longer defend themselves against tyrannical governments should be impressed on the students who are marching in protest for more gun control.   Nancy  
 THE WASHINGTON TIMES
TAKING A SECOND LOOK
BY NATE BROGIN   March 4, 2018

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  

Guns have a long history of debate in both the U.S. and elsewhere and remain a flash point in the minds of many maybe because they are the image of a basic weapon of war and personal defense. Guns have been the employed tool of some, yet the lack of guns exacerbates exposure to violence.

In 2014 Australia, all “registered” guns were outlawed and turned in. In 2015, Ed Chenel, a police chief in that country, confirmed that criminal armed robbery increased by a whopping 40 percent. Homicides in the State of Victoria alone are up 300 percent. You know why.

Acting on mostly the emotions of blame, history memorialized:

In 1938, Germany established gun control. By 1945, 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.

In 1929, the USSR established gun control. By 1953, about 20 million dissidents were terminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, were neutralized.

In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political voices of a different opinion, were eliminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control. By 1979, 300,000 Christians, became unaccounted for.

Accept this fact of reality — armed people will never willingly load themselves into railroad boxcars.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

Share

VIDEO – NON CITIZENS ARE VOTING IN TEXAS – TUCKER CARLSON AND J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS

Thursday, March 15th, 2018

Share

THE POLITICIZATION OF THE FBI

Wednesday, March 14th, 2018

 

IMPRIMIS

The Politicization of the FBI

February 2018 • Volume 47, Number 2

Joseph E. diGenova  Former U.S. Attorney


Joseph E. diGenovaJoseph E. diGenova is a founding partner of diGenova & Toensing, LLP. He received his B.A. from the University of Cincinnati and his J.D. from Georgetown University. He has served as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Independent Counsel of the United States, Special Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee).


 

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 25, 2018, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series. 

Over the past year, facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the presidency. This conduct was not based on mere bias, as has been widely claimed, but rather on deeply felt animus toward Trump and his agenda.

In the course of this plot, FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, Strzok’s paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, FBI General Counsel James Baker, and DOJ senior official Bruce Ohr—perhaps among others—compromised federal law enforcement to such an extent that the American public is losing trust. A recent CBS News poll finds 48 percent of Americans believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia collusion probe is “politically motivated,” a stunning conclusion. And 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.

I spent my early legal career as a federal prosecutor. I later supervised hundreds of prosecutors and prosecutions as a U.S. Attorney and as an Independent Counsel. I have never witnessed investigations so fraught with failure to fulfill the basic elements of a criminal probe as those conducted under James Comey. Not since former Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray deep-sixed evidence during Watergate has the head of the FBI been so discredited as Comey is now.

(more…)

Share

VA SOCIAL WORKER FIRED FOR HAVING A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT BUT NOT A GUN

Tuesday, March 13th, 2018

 

THE BLAZE

Virginia social worker claims she was fired from job for simply having a concealed carry permit — but not a gun

A young Virginia woman’s story is going viral over the weekend after she claims she was fired from her job as a social worker for simply possessing a permit to carry concealed weapons.

The woman claims that at the time of her termination, she wasn’t carrying a weapon.

What happened?

Storm Durham, who was until Friday a social worker for the city of Roanoke, posted on social media that she was fired from her job for being a legal concealed carry permittee and was escorted out of her workplace by three police officers upon learning of her termination because, as she claimed, she was deemed a “safety risk.” At the time, Durham said she was not in possession of a firearm.

The 22-year-old woman later went to her Facebook page to explain the full story.

In a lengthy post, Durham explained she was fired simply for having the concealed carry permit. She said she never had a firearm or concealed weapon while at work.

“I was fired today due to having a concealed carry permit. Was my gun on me? No. Has it ever been on me during my job, or visits, or anything related to work? No. When I told them that it has never been on me during work, what did they say? ‘How do we know that.’ Search me. Do I have a criminal record? No,” she wrote.

Durham, who said she is 5’2″ and just 140 pounds, went on to question why she needed to be escorted out of her office by three police officers and why she was deemed a “serious safety concerns to the building.”

She wrote:

I have a concealed carry permit. I own guns. I hunt. I target shoot. I represent Women hunters and outdoorswomen. Does that make me a criminal? Does that make me a safety risk to others? A big enough safety risk to be escorted by three Roanoke City Police officers? So scary and threatening that I need to be treated like a criminal? To be humiliated and looked down upon for owning a gun? For legally having a gun, registering that gun, and having the appropriate documentation for that gun?

Later in her post, Durham said her employer should be “ashamed” for its actions, for firing “a innocent, clean record, white, female, college graduate who works for a living for legally having, and owning a gun.”

“That was NEVER on their property or in their building. A gun that was never used for evil, but as protection as I am a survivor or sexual assault. Protection for being that white, 22 year old, female. I am an American,” she added.

She later posted a Facebook live video describing more of what happened to her:

Was the termination legal?

According to one interview with Durham, she believes it was not. The Commonwealth of Virginia is a right-to-work and at-will work state, meaning an employer can dismiss employees without reason or notice while employees can quit without reason or notice.

However, since Durham believes her termination was in violation of her Second Amendment rights, she will likely lawyer up and fight her termination, which is what hundreds of people have urged her to do.

 

Share

HEARTS WITHOUT GOD

Saturday, March 3rd, 2018

 

I agree completely with the comments that Cathy Wright has made regarding this audio video.  Give it 15  minutes of your time  and you will be amazed at the new  information you will hear in Pastor Garrison’s   message.  Please share with your email lists and post the link on facebook.        Thanks to Cathy for sharing with us.  Nancy

Below is a link to a sermon audio about the recent events in Parkland, FL, presented by Pastor Charles Garrison, Calvary Memorial Church in Southern Pines, NC.

 

I am aware that most are so busy that invitations to listen to a man for 42 minutes will likely result in a convenient reason to skip it.  Listen for 15 minutes and you will discover reasons for continuing to the end. Make time to do this without distraction.

 

Our nation is facing a crisis. The problem is not guns. It’s hearts without God; homes without parental discipline; schools without prayer; and, courts without justice.

 

Please feel free to pass this on.

Best,

Cathy

 

www.sermonaudio.com/playpopupvideo.asp?SID=228181853299

 

 

Share
Search All Posts
Categories